I hate that Tesla gets extra scrutiny. I wish they'd go the other way and say that the technology implementation is crap in cars that cost more than a Model X and S but no, they never do.

Click to expand...

I look at it this way: the vast majority of people who drive automobiles are still using a vehicle propelled by some form of ICE. They are going to scrutinize any BEV much more closely than a gasoline or diesel car.

If Edmunds subjects Model X to the most intense scrutiny possible, and it still makes a favorable impression, that will be a big win.

I look at it this way: the vast majority of people who drive automobiles are still using a vehicle propelled by some form of ICE. They are going to scrutinize any BEV much more closely than a gasoline or diesel car.

If Edmunds subjects Model X to the most intense scrutiny possible, and it still makes a favorable impression, that will be a big win.

Click to expand...

True, but in a sense a BEV powertrain offers greater luxury than an ICE. It seems as though this should be noted somewhere. Like, the interior isn't up to the 7-series, but the powertrain is the new standard in how a luxury vehicle should perform.

Why do you believe that they get extra scrutiny?
There are 17 other cars in a long term road test and they have a long list of others that went through the same.

Since most of the cars they do this for are sub 100k and sell a heck of a lot more units, Tesla should be happy that they get attention in this group.

Heat/Kitchen, etc.

Click to expand...

It's not so much that Tesla's get extra scrutiny (although an argument can be made that fossil fuel companies have tried to sway public opinion), it's that gasoline powered cars don't get scrutinized for killing the environment.

It's not so much that Tesla's get extra scrutiny (although an argument can be made that fossil fuel companies have tried to sway public opinion), it's that gasoline powered cars don't get scrutinized for killing the environment.

Click to expand...

Ok, now that's funny!

On your planet, there has been absolutely NO coverage of this thing called global warming and absolutely no coverage of pollution caused by autos and the EPA hasn't put any pressure on improving MPG and no commentary about "war for oil", no discussion about carbon footprint, and no ride-sharing services like Uber/Lyft to limit usage of the ICE.

On your planet, there has been absolutely NO coverage of this thing called global warming and absolutely no coverage of pollution caused by autos and the EPA hasn't put any pressure on improving MPG and no commentary about "war for oil", no discussion about carbon footprint, and no ride-sharing services like Uber/Lyft to limit usage of the ICE.

Well, here on planet Earth, there has been plenty of that.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that, what i'm saying is that they're not factoring in the true cost. Sure it may be $3 per gallon of gas but the true cost of that gas must be determined from the long term environmental damage.

" True Cost
An economic model that seeks to include the cost of negative externalities into the pricing of goods and services. Supporters of this type of economic system feel products and activities that directly or indirectly cause harmful consequences to living beings and/or the environment should be accordingly taxed to reflect the somewhat hidden costs."

I look at it this way: the vast majority of people who drive automobiles are still using a vehicle propelled by some form of ICE. They are going to scrutinize any BEV much more closely than a gasoline or diesel car.

If Edmunds subjects Model X to the most intense scrutiny possible, and it still makes a favorable impression, that will be a big win.

Click to expand...

Right I think that's fine, but they'll knock Tesla for cupholders and interior fit and finish and use BMW as a bar or something. When it comes to tech though, Tesla isn't used as a measuring stick. Perhaps extra scrutiny might not be the correct term for it, but maybe broken measuring sticks?

I'm not saying that, what i'm saying is that they're not factoring in the true cost.

Click to expand...

Strawman argument detected.
Where in this R&T article do they even mention the operating costs, true or otherwise?

Sure it may be $3 per gallon of gas but the true cost of that gas must be determined from the long term environmental damage.
For example, you cannot just ignore the cost of medicine for everyone who have asthma caused by air pollution.

Click to expand...

Ok. So for a person who buys a car today, given the emissions requirements, catalytic converters, how much environmental damage do they do per tankful? $0.01? $0.1? $1? $10? $100? Just saying there are additional costs is completely meaningless if they aren't
quantified at least to in terms of order of magnitude.

But here is a real number about "real cost" for you...

If you believe this article, and you care about the environment, and "real cost of EV", you should support using the tax rebates for EV to buy old cars and take them off the road. Spending that $7500*200,000 (vehicles) would have a significantly higher impact. Giving the money to people who can afford a $75k is a bigger waste and "real" cost since that money could have been used to more significantly improve air pollution. 25% of cars are causing 90% of the air pollution that we breathe, new study finds

Agree that Tesla does get a bit more scrutiny than others and not an equal amount of credit for the BEV and unique TM features.

That said, TM tech, in and of itself, is not leaps and bounds above others. Audi could implement AP, they're just too cautious. Mercedes could too. The Audi Q7 and new A4 have more sensors, including rear radar. Tesla is willing to push the envelope/capabilities of its tech, whereas others are not. For that, they should be praised. However, even as an S and X owner, this idea that TM tech is far and above others doesn't seem accurate to me - but that's for another thread.

So if you criticize Tesla for lacking luxury, it's only fair to criticize the others for having too much noise, smell, vibration, etc "for a $100,000+ car."

Click to expand...

Which $140k cars are you test driving that have a lot of noise, smell or vibration? Even a "lowly" 75k LS460 is really quiet (no hum, or wind noise, whistling from windows, etc), low vibration and doesn't smell.

In a luxury car, some people may actually (wait for it...) care about the luxury aspect! Shocking, I know.

Which $140k cars are you test driving that have a lot of noise, smell or vibration? Even a "lowly" 75k LS460 is really quiet (no hum, or wind noise, whistling from windows, etc), low vibration and doesn't smell.

In a luxury car, some people may actually (wait for it...) care about the luxury aspect! Shocking, I know.

Click to expand...

Which cars? Every single ICE ever made, in comparison to an EV.

What you may also find shocking is that Tesla has always called the S/X premium cars. Never once have they used the word luxury.

Extra scrutiny in regards to the feature set of the car. So for example... Oh these cupholders blah blah. There 100% is extra scrutiny because Tesla or Elon Musk = $$$ for ad clicks.

But then you compare a Model S/X touchscreen with the stupid iDrive/Command systems of the other brands and Tesla doesn't get much praise in comparison to that.

Click to expand...

Funny example as Americans have been complaining about the lack of cup holder in German cars for a long time.
I still don't understand why it's such a big deal as I pretty much only use them for my phone and use a bottle for long trips, but for some reason you Americans seem to care a lot about them.
So it's not just Tesla somehow being picked out here.

Funny example as Americans have been complaining about the lack of cup holder in German cars for a long time.
I still don't understand why it's such a big deal as I pretty much only use them for my phone and use a bottle for long trips, but for some reason you Americans seem to care a lot about them.

Click to expand...

This is largely the fault of Japanese automakers, and Honda in particular IMO.

About 10 years ago, the Honda Fit arrived in North America. It was only a small 5-door sub-compact hatchback, but it had lots of cupholders. I believe there were 3 for the driver alone. By 2008, the Honda Fit had a total of 10 cupholders. Keep in mind that this for a car that can only seat a maximum of 5 people. If this seems unbelievable, there are plenty of articles on the Internet with the specification. Example of current generation Honda Fit: On Wheels: Warren Brown reviews the 2015 Honda Fit

In the American market, "more" is often equated with "better", so automakers began to compete on drink holders for their USDM vehicles. If a lowly Honda Fit could have 10 cupholders, other companies did not want to be left behind. If they couldn't compete in number of cupholders, they would make them larger to accommodate super-sized coffee and soda drinks.

You complained that there was a failure "to criticize the others for having too much noise, smell, vibration"

I asked which $140k cars you test drove that have too much noise, smell and vibration.

The reason people aren't criticing other luxury cars for "too much noise, smell and vibration" is that it isn't a valid criticism. Go test drive a LS460 or S550 or 7 Series and tell me that the press missed the boat for not criticising them for "too much noise, smell, vibration". I'll wait.

That is no more valid than criticizing a car that gets 35 MPG just because other cars may exist that get 40 MPG.